Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 451	control, N = 221	treatment, N = 231	p-value2
age	45	50.53 ± 12.60 (25 - 72)	49.85 ± 12.81 (25 - 72)	51.19 ± 12.65 (32 - 72)	0.725
gender	45				0.463
f		29 (64%)	13 (59%)	16 (70%)
m		16 (36%)	9 (41%)	7 (30%)
occupation	45				0.978
day_training		1 (2.2%)	1 (4.5%)	0 (0%)
full_time		5 (11%)	3 (14%)	2 (8.7%)
homemaker		2 (4.4%)	1 (4.5%)	1 (4.3%)
other		2 (4.4%)	0 (0%)	2 (8.7%)
part_time		8 (18%)	4 (18%)	4 (17%)
retired		13 (29%)	6 (27%)	7 (30%)
self_employ		2 (4.4%)	1 (4.5%)	1 (4.3%)
t_and_e		2 (4.4%)	1 (4.5%)	1 (4.3%)
unemploy		10 (22%)	5 (23%)	5 (22%)
marital	45				0.893
divore		5 (11%)	3 (14%)	2 (8.7%)
married		8 (18%)	3 (14%)	5 (22%)
none		26 (58%)	13 (59%)	13 (57%)
seperation		3 (6.7%)	2 (9.1%)	1 (4.3%)
widow		3 (6.7%)	1 (4.5%)	2 (8.7%)
edu	45				0.679
bachelor		13 (29%)	5 (23%)	8 (35%)
diploma		7 (16%)	5 (23%)	2 (8.7%)
hd_ad		2 (4.4%)	1 (4.5%)	1 (4.3%)
postgraduate		4 (8.9%)	2 (9.1%)	2 (8.7%)
primary		4 (8.9%)	1 (4.5%)	3 (13%)
secondary_1_3		3 (6.7%)	1 (4.5%)	2 (8.7%)
secondary_4_5		11 (24%)	7 (32%)	4 (17%)
secondary_6_7		1 (2.2%)	0 (0%)	1 (4.3%)
fam_income	45				0.797
10001_12000		3 (6.7%)	1 (4.5%)	2 (8.7%)
12001_14000		2 (4.4%)	2 (9.1%)	0 (0%)
14001_16000		4 (8.9%)	1 (4.5%)	3 (13%)
16001_18000		2 (4.4%)	1 (4.5%)	1 (4.3%)
18001_20000		1 (2.2%)	1 (4.5%)	0 (0%)
20001_above		9 (20%)	6 (27%)	3 (13%)
2001_4000		5 (11%)	2 (9.1%)	3 (13%)
4001_6000		7 (16%)	3 (14%)	4 (17%)
6001_8000		5 (11%)	3 (14%)	2 (8.7%)
8001_10000		3 (6.7%)	1 (4.5%)	2 (8.7%)
below_2000		4 (8.9%)	1 (4.5%)	3 (13%)
medication	45	38 (84%)	18 (82%)	20 (87%)	0.699
onset_duration	45	16.04 ± 12.52 (0 - 56)	17.24 ± 14.47 (1 - 56)	14.89 ± 10.53 (0 - 35)	0.535
onset_age	45	34.50 ± 12.38 (15 - 62)	32.61 ± 11.19 (16 - 55)	36.31 ± 13.43 (15 - 62)	0.322
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 451	control, N = 221	treatment, N = 231	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	45	3.44 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)	3.41 ± 1.30 (1 - 5)	3.48 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)	0.854
recovery_stage_b	45	18.42 ± 2.62 (9 - 23)	18.50 ± 2.87 (9 - 23)	18.35 ± 2.42 (14 - 23)	0.848
ras_confidence	45	30.80 ± 4.70 (19 - 40)	30.41 ± 4.52 (19 - 40)	31.17 ± 4.94 (22 - 39)	0.591
ras_willingness	45	12.31 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)	12.36 ± 1.81 (9 - 15)	12.26 ± 2.26 (7 - 15)	0.868
ras_goal	45	17.69 ± 3.01 (12 - 24)	17.64 ± 3.03 (12 - 23)	17.74 ± 3.06 (12 - 24)	0.911
ras_reliance	45	13.51 ± 3.06 (8 - 20)	13.32 ± 2.77 (8 - 18)	13.70 ± 3.36 (8 - 20)	0.684
ras_domination	45	10.20 ± 2.38 (3 - 15)	10.95 ± 1.68 (8 - 15)	9.48 ± 2.74 (3 - 14)	0.036
symptom	45	29.38 ± 10.10 (14 - 56)	28.41 ± 8.67 (14 - 45)	30.30 ± 11.41 (15 - 56)	0.535
slof_work	45	22.89 ± 4.93 (10 - 30)	23.36 ± 4.69 (15 - 30)	22.43 ± 5.22 (10 - 30)	0.534
slof_relationship	45	26.36 ± 5.68 (11 - 35)	26.95 ± 5.74 (15 - 35)	25.78 ± 5.69 (11 - 35)	0.495
satisfaction	45	21.18 ± 6.74 (5 - 30)	19.95 ± 6.56 (5 - 29)	22.35 ± 6.83 (5 - 30)	0.238
mhc_emotional	45	11.58 ± 3.60 (4 - 18)	11.36 ± 3.08 (6 - 17)	11.78 ± 4.09 (4 - 18)	0.701
mhc_social	45	15.16 ± 4.98 (6 - 26)	15.68 ± 5.00 (8 - 26)	14.65 ± 5.01 (6 - 23)	0.494
mhc_psychological	45	22.31 ± 6.26 (6 - 36)	21.95 ± 6.29 (10 - 33)	22.65 ± 6.35 (6 - 36)	0.713
resilisnce	45	17.11 ± 4.69 (6 - 25)	17.14 ± 4.54 (6 - 24)	17.09 ± 4.93 (7 - 25)	0.972
social_provision	45	13.71 ± 3.22 (5 - 20)	13.50 ± 2.91 (8 - 20)	13.91 ± 3.55 (5 - 19)	0.672
els_value_living	45	17.18 ± 2.98 (5 - 23)	16.95 ± 2.17 (12 - 20)	17.39 ± 3.63 (5 - 23)	0.629
els_life_fulfill	45	13.18 ± 3.35 (4 - 18)	12.36 ± 3.39 (5 - 17)	13.96 ± 3.18 (4 - 18)	0.111
els	45	30.36 ± 5.69 (9 - 40)	29.32 ± 4.74 (20 - 36)	31.35 ± 6.42 (9 - 40)	0.236
social_connect	45	27.13 ± 10.07 (8 - 48)	27.18 ± 9.09 (8 - 45)	27.09 ± 11.14 (8 - 48)	0.975
shs_agency	45	14.36 ± 4.78 (3 - 20)	13.91 ± 4.42 (3 - 20)	14.78 ± 5.16 (3 - 20)	0.546
shs_pathway	45	16.82 ± 3.73 (4 - 22)	16.45 ± 3.39 (9 - 22)	17.17 ± 4.06 (4 - 22)	0.523
shs	45	31.18 ± 7.86 (7 - 42)	30.36 ± 7.37 (16 - 41)	31.96 ± 8.39 (7 - 42)	0.503
esteem	45	12.53 ± 1.24 (10 - 15)	12.73 ± 1.08 (10 - 14)	12.35 ± 1.37 (10 - 15)	0.309
mlq_search	45	15.27 ± 3.32 (3 - 21)	15.27 ± 3.25 (6 - 21)	15.26 ± 3.45 (3 - 20)	0.991
mlq_presence	45	13.73 ± 3.96 (3 - 21)	14.14 ± 2.92 (6 - 19)	13.35 ± 4.79 (3 - 21)	0.511
mlq	45	29.00 ± 6.63 (6 - 41)	29.41 ± 5.98 (12 - 40)	28.61 ± 7.32 (6 - 41)	0.691
empower	45	20.07 ± 4.28 (6 - 28)	20.27 ± 3.68 (11 - 24)	19.87 ± 4.86 (6 - 28)	0.756
ismi_resistance	45	14.98 ± 2.79 (5 - 20)	15.14 ± 2.27 (12 - 19)	14.83 ± 3.26 (5 - 20)	0.714
ismi_discrimation	45	11.22 ± 3.13 (5 - 19)	11.91 ± 2.96 (5 - 17)	10.57 ± 3.20 (5 - 19)	0.151
sss_affective	45	9.47 ± 4.19 (3 - 18)	9.86 ± 3.40 (3 - 15)	9.09 ± 4.87 (3 - 18)	0.540
sss_behavior	45	9.44 ± 4.38 (3 - 18)	10.00 ± 4.23 (3 - 18)	8.91 ± 4.55 (3 - 18)	0.412
sss_cognitive	45	7.82 ± 3.98 (3 - 18)	7.41 ± 3.55 (3 - 15)	8.22 ± 4.39 (3 - 18)	0.502
sss	45	26.73 ± 11.65 (9 - 54)	27.27 ± 9.79 (9 - 44)	26.22 ± 13.40 (9 - 54)	0.765
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.41	0.253	2.91, 3.91
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.069	0.355	-0.626, 0.764	0.846
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.686	0.465	-0.225, 1.60	0.154
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.481	0.710	-1.87, 0.910	0.504
	Pseudo R square	0.033
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	18.5	0.559	17.4, 19.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.152	0.782	-1.68, 1.38	0.847
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.146	0.589	-1.30, 1.01	0.809
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.669	0.909	-1.11, 2.45	0.478
	Pseudo R square	0.003
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	30.4	0.994	28.5, 32.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.765	1.391	-1.96, 3.49	0.585
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.588	0.690	-0.765, 1.94	0.413
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.062	1.068	-2.03, 2.15	0.955
	Pseudo R square	0.009
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	12.4	0.431	11.5, 13.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.103	0.603	-1.28, 1.08	0.865
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.443	0.526	-1.47, 0.587	0.414
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.487	0.811	-1.10, 2.08	0.558
	Pseudo R square	0.005
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.6	0.650	16.4, 18.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.103	0.909	-1.68, 1.88	0.910
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.114	0.662	-1.18, 1.41	0.866
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.903	1.022	-2.91, 1.10	0.395
	Pseudo R square	0.005
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.3	0.651	12.0, 14.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.377	0.911	-1.41, 2.16	0.681
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.132	0.407	-0.665, 0.928	0.752
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.526	0.629	-0.708, 1.76	0.421
	Pseudo R square	0.009
ras_domination	(Intercept)	11.0	0.490	10.0, 11.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.48	0.685	-2.82, -0.134	0.036
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.12	0.833	-2.75, 0.516	0.194
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.56	1.277	-0.944, 4.06	0.235
	Pseudo R square	0.080
symptom	(Intercept)	28.4	2.195	24.1, 32.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.90	3.070	-4.12, 7.91	0.540
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.10	1.779	-4.59, 2.39	0.549
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.95	2.751	-3.44, 7.34	0.493
	Pseudo R square	0.014
slof_work	(Intercept)	23.4	1.059	21.3, 25.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.929	1.482	-3.83, 1.98	0.534
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.85	0.579	-2.98, -0.711	0.009
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.892	0.896	-0.864, 2.65	0.342
	Pseudo R square	0.020
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	27.0	1.229	24.5, 29.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.17	1.718	-4.54, 2.20	0.499
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.51	1.043	-3.55, 0.533	0.174
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.91	1.612	-1.25, 5.07	0.259
	Pseudo R square	0.011
satisfaction	(Intercept)	20.0	1.402	17.2, 22.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.39	1.961	-1.45, 6.24	0.229
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.72	1.420	-0.062, 5.51	0.081
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.155	2.194	-4.46, 4.15	0.945
	Pseudo R square	0.053
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	11.4	0.765	9.86, 12.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.419	1.070	-1.68, 2.52	0.697
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.02	1.041	-1.02, 3.06	0.344
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.42	1.603	-4.56, 1.72	0.392
	Pseudo R square	0.009
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.7	1.141	13.4, 17.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.03	1.595	-4.16, 2.10	0.522
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.23	1.627	-0.960, 5.42	0.188
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.74	2.505	-8.65, 1.17	0.153
	Pseudo R square	0.050
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	22.0	1.360	19.3, 24.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.698	1.902	-3.03, 4.42	0.715
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.75	1.906	-1.99, 5.49	0.372
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.05	2.935	-8.81, 2.70	0.313
	Pseudo R square	0.010
resilisnce	(Intercept)	17.1	0.965	15.2, 19.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.049	1.350	-2.70, 2.60	0.971
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.967	1.416	-1.81, 3.74	0.506
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.206	2.180	-4.48, 4.07	0.926
	Pseudo R square	0.007
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.5	0.682	12.2, 14.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.413	0.953	-1.46, 2.28	0.667
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.361	0.755	-1.84, 1.12	0.641
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.69	1.166	-0.591, 3.98	0.170
	Pseudo R square	0.027
els_value_living	(Intercept)	17.0	0.619	15.7, 18.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.437	0.865	-1.26, 2.13	0.616
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.34	0.775	-0.181, 2.86	0.104
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.12	1.195	-3.46, 1.22	0.362
	Pseudo R square	0.021
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.4	0.673	11.0, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.59	0.941	-0.252, 3.44	0.097
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.43	0.753	-0.042, 2.91	0.080
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.11	1.162	-3.39, 1.17	0.358
	Pseudo R square	0.060
els	(Intercept)	29.3	1.161	27.0, 31.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.03	1.623	-1.15, 5.21	0.217
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.81	1.391	0.087, 5.54	0.061
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.25	2.146	-6.46, 1.96	0.311
	Pseudo R square	0.042
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.2	2.134	23.0, 31.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.095	2.985	-5.95, 5.76	0.975
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.63	1.702	-1.71, 4.97	0.359
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.56	2.633	-3.60, 6.72	0.565
	Pseudo R square	0.010
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.9	1.006	11.9, 15.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.874	1.407	-1.88, 3.63	0.538
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.46	1.073	-0.642, 3.56	0.200
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.01	1.657	-4.26, 2.24	0.553
	Pseudo R square	0.014
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	16.5	0.754	15.0, 17.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.719	1.054	-1.35, 2.79	0.498
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.890	0.959	-0.990, 2.77	0.369
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.004	1.479	-2.89, 2.90	0.998
	Pseudo R square	0.019
shs	(Intercept)	30.4	1.621	27.2, 33.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.59	2.267	-2.85, 6.04	0.486
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.34	1.831	-1.25, 5.93	0.225
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.991	2.826	-6.53, 4.55	0.732
	Pseudo R square	0.018
esteem	(Intercept)	12.7	0.257	12.2, 13.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.379	0.359	-1.08, 0.324	0.296
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.848	0.476	-0.086, 1.78	0.100
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.847	0.727	-2.27, 0.578	0.264
	Pseudo R square	0.097
mlq_search	(Intercept)	15.3	0.723	13.9, 16.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.012	1.011	-1.99, 1.97	0.991
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.657	1.279	-1.85, 3.16	0.612
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.13	1.957	-5.97, 1.70	0.285
	Pseudo R square	0.021
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	14.1	0.829	12.5, 15.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.789	1.160	-3.06, 1.49	0.500
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.06	1.194	-1.28, 3.40	0.389
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.29	1.837	-4.90, 2.31	0.492
	Pseudo R square	0.026
mlq	(Intercept)	29.4	1.424	26.6, 32.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.800	1.992	-4.70, 3.10	0.689
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.78	2.286	-2.70, 6.26	0.445
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.47	3.510	-10.4, 3.41	0.334
	Pseudo R square	0.024
empower	(Intercept)	20.3	0.888	18.5, 22.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.403	1.242	-2.84, 2.03	0.747
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.534	0.823	-1.08, 2.15	0.529
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.516	1.272	-3.01, 1.98	0.692
	Pseudo R square	0.006
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	15.1	0.566	14.0, 16.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.310	0.792	-1.86, 1.24	0.697
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.203	0.858	-1.88, 1.48	0.816
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.677	1.319	-1.91, 3.26	0.613
	Pseudo R square	0.004
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	11.9	0.645	10.6, 13.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.34	0.903	-3.11, 0.425	0.143
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.833	0.791	-2.38, 0.717	0.309
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.242	1.220	-2.15, 2.63	0.845
	Pseudo R square	0.051
sss_affective	(Intercept)	9.86	0.876	8.15, 11.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.777	1.225	-3.18, 1.62	0.529
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.306	0.668	-1.62, 1.00	0.656
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.712	1.033	-2.74, 1.31	0.505
	Pseudo R square	0.017
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.0	0.914	8.21, 11.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.09	1.278	-3.59, 1.42	0.400
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.28	0.952	-3.15, 0.584	0.203
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.766	1.470	-2.12, 3.65	0.612
	Pseudo R square	0.020
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	7.41	0.862	5.72, 9.10
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.808	1.205	-1.55, 3.17	0.506
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.25	0.806	-0.334, 2.83	0.148
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.37	1.247	-4.81, 0.077	0.082
	Pseudo R square	0.016
sss	(Intercept)	27.3	2.469	22.4, 32.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.06	3.453	-7.82, 5.71	0.761
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.466	1.887	-4.16, 3.23	0.809
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.00	2.919	-7.72, 3.72	0.508
	Pseudo R square	0.007
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.32) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.41 (95% CI [2.91, 3.91], t(51) = 13.45, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.76], t(51) = 0.20, p = 0.845; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.65])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.60], t(51) = 1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.87, 0.91], t(51) = -0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.77])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.50 (95% CI [17.40, 19.60], t(51) = 33.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.68, 1.38], t(51) = -0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.01], t(51) = -0.25, p = 0.804; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.40])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.45], t(51) = 0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.97])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.41 (95% CI [28.46, 32.36], t(51) = 30.58, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.49], t(51) = 0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.73])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.94], t(51) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.03, 2.15], t(51) = 0.06, p = 0.954; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.45])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.36 (95% CI [11.52, 13.21], t(51) = 28.69, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.08], t(51) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.53])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.59], t(51) = -0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.10, 2.08], t(51) = 0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.03])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.64 (95% CI [16.36, 18.91], t(51) = 27.15, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.68, 1.88], t(51) = 0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.63])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.41], t(51) = 0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.47])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-2.91, 1.10], t(51) = -0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.37])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.33e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.32 (95% CI [12.04, 14.59], t(51) = 20.45, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.41, 2.16], t(51) = 0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.68])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.93], t(51) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.76], t(51) = 0.84, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.56])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.95 (95% CI [9.99, 11.91], t(51) = 22.37, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.48, 95% CI [-2.82, -0.13], t(51) = -2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.20, -0.06])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-2.75, 0.52], t(51) = -1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-0.94, 4.06], t(51) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.73])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.41 (95% CI [24.11, 32.71], t(51) = 12.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-4.12, 7.91], t(51) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.76])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-4.59, 2.39], t(51) = -0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.95, 95% CI [-3.44, 7.34], t(51) = 0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.70])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.36 (95% CI [21.29, 25.44], t(51) = 22.06, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-3.83, 1.98], t(51) = -0.63, p = 0.531; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.85, 95% CI [-2.98, -0.71], t(51) = -3.19, p = 0.001; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.59, -0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.86, 2.65], t(51) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.53])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.95 (95% CI [24.55, 29.36], t(51) = 21.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-4.54, 2.20], t(51) = -0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-3.55, 0.53], t(51) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.09])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.91, 95% CI [-1.25, 5.07], t(51) = 1.19, p = 0.236; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.86])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.95 (95% CI [17.21, 22.70], t(51) = 14.24, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.39, 95% CI [-1.45, 6.24], t(51) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.94])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.72, 95% CI [-0.06, 5.51], t(51) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-9.40e-03, 0.83])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-4.46, 4.15], t(51) = -0.07, p = 0.944; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.62])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.36 (95% CI [9.86, 12.86], t(51) = 14.86, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.52], t(51) = 0.39, p = 0.695; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.02, 3.06], t(51) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.87])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-4.56, 1.72], t(51) = -0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.49])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.68 (95% CI [13.45, 17.92], t(51) = 13.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-4.16, 2.10], t(51) = -0.65, p = 0.519; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.38])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.23, 95% CI [-0.96, 5.42], t(51) = 1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.97])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.74, 95% CI [-8.65, 1.17], t(51) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.21])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.95 (95% CI [19.29, 24.62], t(51) = 16.15, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-3.03, 4.42], t(51) = 0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.69])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.75, 95% CI [-1.99, 5.49], t(51) = 0.92, p = 0.359; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.86])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.05, 95% CI [-8.81, 2.70], t(51) = -1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.42])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.63e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.14 (95% CI [15.24, 19.03], t(51) = 17.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-2.70, 2.60], t(51) = -0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-1.81, 3.74], t(51) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.84])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-4.48, 4.07], t(51) = -0.09, p = 0.925; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.91])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.50 (95% CI [12.16, 14.84], t(51) = 19.81, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.28], t(51) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.84, 1.12], t(51) = -0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.69, 95% CI [-0.59, 3.98], t(51) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.24])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.95 (95% CI [15.74, 18.17], t(51) = 27.41, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.13], t(51) = 0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.18, 2.86], t(51) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.95])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-3.46, 1.22], t(51) = -0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.41])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.36 (95% CI [11.04, 13.68], t(51) = 18.37, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-0.25, 3.44], t(51) = 1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.06])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [-0.04, 2.91], t(51) = 1.90, p = 0.057; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.89])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-3.39, 1.17], t(51) = -0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.36])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.32 (95% CI [27.04, 31.59], t(51) = 25.26, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [-1.15, 5.21], t(51) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.91])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.81, 95% CI [0.09, 5.54], t(51) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.02, 0.97])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.25, 95% CI [-6.46, 1.96], t(51) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.34])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.18 (95% CI [23.00, 31.36], t(51) = 12.74, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-5.95, 5.76], t(51) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -9.59e-03, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [-1.71, 4.97], t(51) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-3.60, 6.72], t(51) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.68])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.91 (95% CI [11.94, 15.88], t(51) = 13.83, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.88, 3.63], t(51) = 0.62, p = 0.535; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.78])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.64, 3.56], t(51) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.76])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.01, 95% CI [-4.26, 2.24], t(51) = -0.61, p = 0.541; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.48])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.45 (95% CI [14.98, 17.93], t(51) = 21.83, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.35, 2.79], t(51) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.78])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.99, 2.77], t(51) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.78])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.51e-03, 95% CI [-2.89, 2.90], t(51) = 2.37e-03, p = 0.998; Std. beta = 9.86e-04, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.82])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.36 (95% CI [27.19, 33.54], t(51) = 18.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-2.85, 6.04], t(51) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.79])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.34, 95% CI [-1.25, 5.93], t(51) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.78])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-6.53, 4.55], t(51) = -0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.60])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.73 (95% CI [12.22, 13.23], t(51) = 49.59, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.32], t(51) = -1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.26])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.78], t(51) = 1.78, p = 0.075; Std. beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.58], t(51) = -1.16, p = 0.244; Std. beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.84, 0.47])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.27 (95% CI [13.86, 16.69], t(51) = 21.13, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.99, 1.97], t(51) = -0.01, p = 0.991; Std. beta = -3.49e-03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.85, 3.16], t(51) = 0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.93])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.13, 95% CI [-5.97, 1.70], t(51) = -1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.76, 0.50])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.14 (95% CI [12.51, 15.76], t(51) = 17.04, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-3.06, 1.49], t(51) = -0.68, p = 0.497; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.38])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-1.28, 3.40], t(51) = 0.89, p = 0.374; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.87])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-4.90, 2.31], t(51) = -0.70, p = 0.481; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.59])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.41 (95% CI [26.62, 32.20], t(51) = 20.65, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-4.70, 3.10], t(51) = -0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.78, 95% CI [-2.70, 6.26], t(51) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.93])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.47, 95% CI [-10.35, 3.41], t(51) = -0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.50])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.63e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.27 (95% CI [18.53, 22.01], t(51) = 22.83, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-2.84, 2.03], t(51) = -0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.15], t(51) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.51])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-3.01, 1.98], t(51) = -0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.47])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.14 (95% CI [14.03, 16.25], t(51) = 26.72, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.24], t(51) = -0.39, p = 0.695; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.88, 1.48], t(51) = -0.24, p = 0.813; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.55])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.91, 3.26], t(51) = 0.51, p = 0.608; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.22])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.91 (95% CI [10.64, 13.17], t(51) = 18.46, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-3.11, 0.43], t(51) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.13])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.38, 0.72], t(51) = -1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.15, 2.63], t(51) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.83])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.86 (95% CI [8.15, 11.58], t(51) = 11.26, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-3.18, 1.62], t(51) = -0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.62, 1.00], t(51) = -0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-2.74, 1.31], t(51) = -0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.31])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.00 (95% CI [8.21, 11.79], t(51) = 10.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.09, 95% CI [-3.59, 1.42], t(51) = -0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.33])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-3.15, 0.58], t(51) = -1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-2.12, 3.65], t(51) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.85])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.41 (95% CI [5.72, 9.10], t(51) = 8.60, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.55, 3.17], t(51) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.78])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.83], t(51) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.69])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.37, 95% CI [-4.81, 0.08], t(51) = -1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.02])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.27 (95% CI [22.43, 32.11], t(51) = 11.05, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-7.82, 5.71], t(51) = -0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-4.16, 3.23], t(51) = -0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.00, 95% CI [-7.72, 3.72], t(51) = -0.68, p = 0.494; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.32])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	184.696	190.826	-89.348	178.696
recovery_stage_a	random	6	188.226	200.484	-88.113	176.226	2.470	3	0.481
recovery_stage_b	null	3	261.227	267.356	-127.613	255.227
recovery_stage_b	random	6	266.493	278.752	-127.247	254.493	0.733	3	0.865
ras_confidence	null	3	318.216	324.346	-156.108	312.216
ras_confidence	random	6	322.417	334.675	-155.208	310.417	1.800	3	0.615
ras_willingness	null	3	235.084	241.213	-114.542	229.084
ras_willingness	random	6	240.267	252.526	-114.134	228.267	0.817	3	0.846
ras_goal	null	3	278.083	284.212	-136.041	272.083
ras_goal	random	6	282.896	295.154	-135.448	270.896	1.187	3	0.756
ras_reliance	null	3	268.065	274.194	-131.032	262.065
ras_reliance	random	6	271.667	283.926	-129.834	259.667	2.397	3	0.494
ras_domination	null	3	261.462	267.591	-127.731	255.462
ras_domination	random	6	261.943	274.201	-124.971	249.943	5.519	3	0.137
symptom	null	3	411.460	417.590	-202.730	405.460
symptom	random	6	416.347	428.605	-202.173	404.347	1.113	3	0.774
slof_work	null	3	326.864	332.993	-160.432	320.864
slof_work	random	6	323.929	336.187	-155.964	311.929	8.935	3	0.030
slof_relationship	null	3	347.843	353.972	-170.921	341.843
slof_relationship	random	6	351.280	363.538	-169.640	339.280	2.563	3	0.464
satisfaction	null	3	371.718	377.847	-182.859	365.718
satisfaction	random	6	370.439	382.698	-179.220	358.439	7.279	3	0.064
mhc_emotional	null	3	303.312	309.441	-148.656	297.312
mhc_emotional	random	6	308.090	320.348	-148.045	296.090	1.222	3	0.748
mhc_social	null	3	352.491	358.620	-173.245	346.491
mhc_social	random	6	354.705	366.963	-171.352	342.705	3.786	3	0.285
mhc_psychological	null	3	369.643	375.772	-181.821	363.643
mhc_psychological	random	6	374.344	386.602	-181.172	362.344	1.299	3	0.729
resilisnce	null	3	330.974	337.103	-162.487	324.974
resilisnce	random	6	336.285	348.543	-162.142	324.285	0.689	3	0.876
social_provision	null	3	287.436	293.566	-140.718	281.436
social_provision	random	6	290.331	302.590	-139.166	278.331	3.105	3	0.376
els_value_living	null	3	279.311	285.441	-136.656	273.311
els_value_living	random	6	282.073	294.331	-135.036	270.073	3.239	3	0.356
els_life_fulfill	null	3	289.250	295.379	-141.625	283.250
els_life_fulfill	random	6	289.084	301.342	-138.542	277.084	6.166	3	0.104
els	null	3	352.170	358.299	-173.085	346.170
els	random	6	352.805	365.064	-170.403	340.805	5.365	3	0.147
social_connect	null	3	410.088	416.217	-202.044	404.088
social_connect	random	6	412.776	425.034	-200.388	400.776	3.312	3	0.346
shs_agency	null	3	330.191	336.320	-162.095	324.191
shs_agency	random	6	333.808	346.066	-160.904	321.808	2.383	3	0.497
shs_pathway	null	3	301.021	307.151	-147.511	295.021
shs_pathway	random	6	304.956	317.214	-146.478	292.956	2.066	3	0.559
shs	null	3	386.081	392.210	-190.040	380.081
shs	random	6	389.518	401.776	-188.759	377.518	2.563	3	0.464
esteem	null	3	189.897	196.026	-91.948	183.897
esteem	random	6	189.806	202.064	-88.903	177.806	6.091	3	0.107
mlq_search	null	3	302.511	308.641	-148.256	296.511
mlq_search	random	6	307.066	319.325	-147.533	295.066	1.445	3	0.695
mlq_presence	null	3	314.214	320.343	-154.107	308.214
mlq_presence	random	6	318.572	330.831	-153.286	306.572	1.642	3	0.650
mlq	null	3	378.028	384.158	-186.014	372.028
mlq	random	6	382.494	394.753	-185.247	370.494	1.534	3	0.674
empower	null	3	310.935	317.064	-152.468	304.935
empower	random	6	316.330	328.588	-152.165	304.330	0.605	3	0.895
ismi_resistance	null	3	270.607	276.736	-132.304	264.607
ismi_resistance	random	6	276.212	288.470	-132.106	264.212	0.396	3	0.941
ismi_discrimation	null	3	284.166	290.295	-139.083	278.166
ismi_discrimation	random	6	286.405	298.663	-137.203	274.405	3.761	3	0.288
sss_affective	null	3	306.725	312.854	-150.362	300.725
sss_affective	random	6	310.175	322.433	-149.088	298.175	2.550	3	0.466
sss_behavior	null	3	319.034	325.163	-156.517	313.034
sss_behavior	random	6	322.303	334.561	-155.151	310.303	2.731	3	0.435
sss_cognitive	null	3	311.148	317.277	-152.574	305.148
sss_cognitive	random	6	313.118	325.376	-150.559	301.118	4.030	3	0.258
sss	null	3	423.928	430.057	-208.964	417.928
sss	random	6	428.367	440.625	-208.183	416.367	1.562	3	0.668

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	22	3.41 ± 1.19		23	3.48 ± 1.19		0.846	-0.069
recovery_stage_a	2nd	7	4.09 ± 1.22	-0.688	5	3.68 ± 1.22	-0.205	0.567	0.413
recovery_stage_b	1st	22	18.50 ± 2.62		23	18.35 ± 2.62		0.847	0.134
recovery_stage_b	2nd	7	18.35 ± 1.97	0.128	5	18.87 ± 1.85	-0.459	0.645	-0.454
ras_confidence	1st	22	30.41 ± 4.66		23	31.17 ± 4.66		0.585	-0.584
ras_confidence	2nd	7	31.00 ± 3.03	-0.449	5	31.82 ± 2.71	-0.496	0.623	-0.631
ras_willingness	1st	22	12.36 ± 2.02		23	12.26 ± 2.02		0.865	0.100
ras_willingness	2nd	7	11.92 ± 1.63	0.430	5	12.30 ± 1.56	-0.043	0.682	-0.373
ras_goal	1st	22	17.64 ± 3.05		23	17.74 ± 3.05		0.910	-0.081
ras_goal	2nd	7	17.75 ± 2.25	-0.089	5	16.95 ± 2.11	0.618	0.533	0.627
ras_reliance	1st	22	13.32 ± 3.05		23	13.70 ± 3.05		0.681	-0.491
ras_reliance	2nd	7	13.45 ± 1.94	-0.171	5	14.35 ± 1.71	-0.855	0.399	-1.174
ras_domination	1st	22	10.95 ± 2.30		23	9.48 ± 2.30		0.036	0.850
ras_domination	2nd	7	9.84 ± 2.25	0.643	5	9.92 ± 2.24	-0.254	0.950	-0.047
symptom	1st	22	28.41 ± 10.30		23	30.30 ± 10.30		0.540	-0.559
symptom	2nd	7	27.31 ± 7.00	0.324	5	31.15 ± 6.37	-0.250	0.328	-1.133
slof_work	1st	22	23.36 ± 4.97		23	22.43 ± 4.97		0.534	0.851
slof_work	2nd	7	21.52 ± 3.08	1.691	5	21.48 ± 2.68	0.874	0.982	0.034
slof_relationship	1st	22	26.95 ± 5.76		23	25.78 ± 5.76		0.499	0.588
slof_relationship	2nd	7	25.44 ± 3.98	0.758	5	26.18 ± 3.64	-0.202	0.740	-0.372
satisfaction	1st	22	19.95 ± 6.57		23	22.35 ± 6.57		0.229	-0.874
satisfaction	2nd	7	22.68 ± 4.85	-0.993	5	24.91 ± 4.54	-0.937	0.418	-0.817
mhc_emotional	1st	22	11.36 ± 3.59		23	11.78 ± 3.59		0.697	-0.203
mhc_emotional	2nd	7	12.39 ± 3.06	-0.494	5	11.39 ± 2.98	0.192	0.575	0.483
mhc_social	1st	22	15.68 ± 5.35		23	14.65 ± 5.35		0.522	0.316
mhc_social	2nd	7	17.91 ± 4.69	-0.684	5	13.14 ± 4.59	0.463	0.088	1.464
mhc_psychological	1st	22	21.95 ± 6.38		23	22.65 ± 6.38		0.715	-0.183
mhc_psychological	2nd	7	23.70 ± 5.54	-0.460	5	21.35 ± 5.40	0.343	0.467	0.619
resilisnce	1st	22	17.14 ± 4.53		23	17.09 ± 4.53		0.971	0.017
resilisnce	2nd	7	18.10 ± 4.04	-0.339	5	17.85 ± 3.96	-0.267	0.914	0.089
social_provision	1st	22	13.50 ± 3.20		23	13.91 ± 3.20		0.667	-0.282
social_provision	2nd	7	13.14 ± 2.45	0.246	5	15.25 ± 2.32	-0.910	0.139	-1.437
els_value_living	1st	22	16.95 ± 2.90		23	17.39 ± 2.90		0.616	-0.287
els_value_living	2nd	7	18.29 ± 2.37	-0.878	5	17.61 ± 2.28	-0.142	0.617	0.449
els_life_fulfill	1st	22	12.36 ± 3.16		23	13.96 ± 3.16		0.097	-1.089
els_life_fulfill	2nd	7	13.80 ± 2.43	-0.980	5	14.28 ± 2.31	-0.221	0.729	-0.330
els	1st	22	29.32 ± 5.44		23	31.35 ± 5.44		0.218	-0.746
els	2nd	7	32.13 ± 4.34	-1.034	5	31.91 ± 4.15	-0.207	0.930	0.081
social_connect	1st	22	27.18 ± 10.01		23	27.09 ± 10.01		0.975	0.029
social_connect	2nd	7	28.81 ± 6.77	-0.502	5	30.28 ± 6.15	-0.984	0.698	-0.453
shs_agency	1st	22	13.91 ± 4.72		23	14.78 ± 4.72		0.538	-0.420
shs_agency	2nd	7	15.37 ± 3.56	-0.703	5	15.23 ± 3.35	-0.216	0.945	0.067
shs_pathway	1st	22	16.45 ± 3.54		23	17.17 ± 3.54		0.499	-0.381
shs_pathway	2nd	7	17.34 ± 2.91	-0.471	5	18.07 ± 2.80	-0.473	0.667	-0.383
shs	1st	22	30.36 ± 7.60		23	31.96 ± 7.60		0.486	-0.447
shs	2nd	7	32.70 ± 5.89	-0.657	5	33.30 ± 5.59	-0.378	0.858	-0.169
esteem	1st	22	12.73 ± 1.20		23	12.35 ± 1.20		0.295	0.369
esteem	2nd	7	13.57 ± 1.24	-0.825	5	12.35 ± 1.25	-0.001	0.099	1.193
mlq_search	1st	22	15.27 ± 3.39		23	15.26 ± 3.39		0.991	0.004
mlq_search	2nd	7	15.93 ± 3.40	-0.243	5	13.79 ± 3.40	0.545	0.288	0.793
mlq_presence	1st	22	14.14 ± 3.89		23	13.35 ± 3.89		0.500	0.330
mlq_presence	2nd	7	15.20 ± 3.43	-0.443	5	13.11 ± 3.36	0.098	0.302	0.871
mlq	1st	22	29.41 ± 6.68		23	28.61 ± 6.68		0.690	0.171
mlq	2nd	7	31.19 ± 6.30	-0.380	5	26.92 ± 6.24	0.360	0.252	0.911
empower	1st	22	20.27 ± 4.17		23	19.87 ± 4.17		0.747	0.255
empower	2nd	7	20.81 ± 2.96	-0.338	5	19.89 ± 2.74	-0.011	0.583	0.582
ismi_resistance	1st	22	15.14 ± 2.66		23	14.83 ± 2.66		0.697	0.179
ismi_resistance	2nd	7	14.93 ± 2.42	0.117	5	15.30 ± 2.38	-0.273	0.795	-0.211
ismi_discrimation	1st	22	11.91 ± 3.03		23	10.57 ± 3.03		0.143	0.866
ismi_discrimation	2nd	7	11.08 ± 2.44	0.537	5	9.97 ± 2.34	0.381	0.436	0.710
sss_affective	1st	22	9.86 ± 4.11		23	9.09 ± 4.11		0.529	0.611
sss_affective	2nd	7	9.56 ± 2.74	0.241	5	8.07 ± 2.48	0.802	0.331	1.172
sss_behavior	1st	22	10.00 ± 4.29		23	8.91 ± 4.29		0.400	0.591
sss_behavior	2nd	7	8.72 ± 3.20	0.697	5	8.40 ± 3.00	0.280	0.860	0.174
sss_cognitive	1st	22	7.41 ± 4.04		23	8.22 ± 4.04		0.506	-0.522
sss_cognitive	2nd	7	8.66 ± 2.89	-0.805	5	7.10 ± 2.67	0.723	0.342	1.007
sss	1st	22	27.27 ± 11.58		23	26.22 ± 11.58		0.761	0.294
sss	2nd	7	26.81 ± 7.73	0.130	5	23.75 ± 6.99	0.686	0.479	0.850

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(51.38) = 0.20, p = 0.846, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.78)

2st

t(42.30) = -0.58, p = 0.567, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.85 to 1.03)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(45.06) = -0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.42)

2st

t(36.28) = 0.46, p = 0.645, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.77)

ras_confidence

1st

t(43.82) = 0.55, p = 0.585, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-2.04 to 3.57)

2st

t(49.29) = 0.50, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-2.53 to 4.18)

ras_willingness

1st

t(45.92) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.11)

2st

t(32.95) = 0.41, p = 0.682, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.28)

ras_goal

1st

t(44.91) = 0.11, p = 0.910, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.93)

2st

t(37.26) = -0.63, p = 0.533, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-3.37 to 1.77)

ras_reliance

1st

t(43.65) = 0.41, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.21)

2st

t(51.45) = 0.85, p = 0.399, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (-1.23 to 3.03)

ras_domination

1st

t(49.90) = -2.16, p = 0.036, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-2.85 to -0.10)

2st

t(36.41) = 0.06, p = 0.950, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.58 to 2.74)

symptom

1st

t(44.14) = 0.62, p = 0.540, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-4.29 to 8.08)

2st

t(44.75) = 0.99, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -1.13, 95% CI (-3.98 to 11.67)

slof_work

1st

t(43.49) = -0.63, p = 0.534, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-3.92 to 2.06)

2st

t(52.82) = -0.02, p = 0.982, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-3.39 to 3.31)

slof_relationship

1st

t(44.27) = -0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.63 to 2.29)

2st

t(43.22) = 0.33, p = 0.740, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-3.73 to 5.21)

satisfaction

1st

t(44.88) = 1.22, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-1.56 to 6.34)

2st

t(37.40) = 0.82, p = 0.418, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-3.30 to 7.78)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(46.83) = 0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.57)

2st

t(31.83) = -0.57, p = 0.575, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-4.59 to 2.60)

mhc_social

1st

t(47.32) = -0.65, p = 0.522, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-4.24 to 2.18)

2st

t(31.84) = -1.76, p = 0.088, Cohen d = 1.46, 95% CI (-10.29 to 0.76)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(47.14) = 0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-3.13 to 4.52)

2st

t(31.79) = -0.74, p = 0.467, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-8.87 to 4.16)

resilisnce

1st

t(47.65) = -0.04, p = 0.971, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.76 to 2.67)

2st

t(32.02) = -0.11, p = 0.914, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-5.02 to 4.51)

social_provision

1st

t(45.32) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.33)

2st

t(34.94) = 1.51, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -1.44, 95% CI (-0.72 to 4.94)

els_value_living

1st

t(46.12) = 0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.18)

2st

t(32.56) = -0.50, p = 0.617, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-3.44 to 2.07)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(45.37) = 1.69, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -1.09, 95% CI (-0.30 to 3.49)

2st

t(34.72) = 0.35, p = 0.729, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-2.32 to 3.29)

els

1st

t(45.80) = 1.25, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-1.24 to 5.30)

2st

t(33.26) = -0.09, p = 0.930, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-5.26 to 4.82)

social_connect

1st

t(44.10) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-6.11 to 5.92)

2st

t(45.27) = 0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-6.10 to 9.03)

shs_agency

1st

t(45.12) = 0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.96 to 3.71)

2st

t(35.93) = -0.07, p = 0.945, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-4.22 to 3.95)

shs_pathway

1st

t(46.24) = 0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.84)

2st

t(32.36) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-2.67 to 4.12)

shs

1st

t(45.43) = 0.70, p = 0.486, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-2.97 to 6.16)

2st

t(34.49) = 0.18, p = 0.858, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-6.20 to 7.40)

esteem

1st

t(51.63) = -1.06, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.34)

2st

t(43.63) = -1.68, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 1.19, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.24)

mlq_search

1st

t(50.66) = -0.01, p = 0.991, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.02)

2st

t(39.08) = -1.08, p = 0.288, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-6.17 to 1.88)

mlq_presence

1st

t(47.42) = -0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.12 to 1.54)

2st

t(31.88) = -1.05, p = 0.302, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-6.12 to 1.96)

mlq

1st

t(48.91) = -0.40, p = 0.690, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-4.80 to 3.20)

2st

t(33.84) = -1.16, p = 0.252, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-11.73 to 3.19)

empower

1st

t(44.54) = -0.32, p = 0.747, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.10)

2st

t(40.25) = -0.55, p = 0.583, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-4.28 to 2.44)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(48.06) = -0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.90 to 1.28)

2st

t(32.43) = 0.26, p = 0.795, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.49 to 3.22)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(45.96) = -1.49, p = 0.143, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-3.16 to 0.47)

2st

t(32.87) = -0.79, p = 0.436, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-3.94 to 1.74)

sss_affective

1st

t(44.00) = -0.63, p = 0.529, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-3.25 to 1.69)

2st

t(46.69) = -0.98, p = 0.331, Cohen d = 1.17, 95% CI (-4.54 to 1.56)

sss_behavior

1st

t(45.01) = -0.85, p = 0.400, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-3.66 to 1.49)

2st

t(36.59) = -0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.98 to 3.34)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(44.57) = 0.67, p = 0.506, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-1.62 to 3.24)

2st

t(39.92) = -0.96, p = 0.342, Cohen d = 1.01, 95% CI (-4.83 to 1.71)

sss

1st

t(44.01) = -0.31, p = 0.761, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-8.01 to 5.90)

2st

t(46.62) = -0.71, p = 0.479, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-11.66 to 5.56)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(24.02) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.38)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(11.83) = 0.74, p = 0.946, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.02 to 2.06)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(10.67) = 0.79, p = 0.893, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.46)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(12.75) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.41)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(11.67) = -1.00, p = 0.679, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.52 to 0.94)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(10.53) = 1.36, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.73)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(19.36) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.57)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(10.96) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-3.82 to 5.52)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(10.40) = -1.39, p = 0.388, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-2.48 to 0.57)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(11.07) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.33 to 3.14)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(11.65) = 1.51, p = 0.316, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-1.15 to 6.28)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(13.87) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.10 to 2.31)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(14.54) = -0.77, p = 0.913, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.72 to 2.71)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(14.27) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-6.25 to 3.64)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(15.02) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-2.90 to 4.43)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(12.10) = 1.47, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.64 to 3.31)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(12.98) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.80 to 2.24)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(12.15) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.64 to 2.29)

els

1st vs 2st

t(12.61) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.06 to 4.19)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(10.92) = 1.57, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-1.28 to 7.66)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(11.89) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-2.36 to 3.26)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(13.12) = 0.77, p = 0.907, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.60 to 3.39)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(12.21) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-3.44 to 6.13)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(25.13) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.20)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(21.46) = -0.94, p = 0.712, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-4.72 to 1.77)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(14.68) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-3.32 to 2.86)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(17.17) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-7.56 to 4.18)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(11.32) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.14 to 2.17)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(15.66) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.69)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(12.79) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.65 to 1.47)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(10.83) = -1.28, p = 0.454, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-2.77 to 0.74)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(11.78) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.01 to 1.98)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(11.35) = -1.16, p = 0.538, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-3.23 to 0.99)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(10.84) = -1.10, p = 0.594, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-7.42 to 2.49)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(21.08) = 1.41, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.70)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(11.56) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.45 to 1.16)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(10.58) = 0.85, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.12)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(12.33) = -0.82, p = 0.850, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.61 to 0.72)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(11.43) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.58)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(10.46) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.04)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(17.57) = -1.29, p = 0.431, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.95 to 0.71)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(10.83) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-5.06 to 2.86)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(10.35) = -3.18, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 1.69, 95% CI (-3.13 to -0.56)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(10.92) = -1.43, p = 0.359, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-3.83 to 0.81)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(11.42) = 1.89, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (-0.44 to 5.88)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(13.25) = 0.96, p = 0.713, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.28 to 3.33)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(13.79) = 1.33, p = 0.410, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-1.37 to 5.83)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(13.58) = 0.89, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-2.47 to 5.97)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(14.18) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-2.16 to 4.10)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(11.79) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-2.04 to 1.32)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(12.52) = 1.69, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-0.38 to 3.06)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(11.83) = 1.87, p = 0.173, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-0.24 to 3.11)

els

1st vs 2st

t(12.22) = 1.98, p = 0.141, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (-0.27 to 5.90)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(10.80) = 0.95, p = 0.727, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-2.16 to 5.42)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(11.62) = 1.34, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.92 to 3.85)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(12.64) = 0.91, p = 0.763, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.02)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(11.88) = 1.25, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.73 to 6.40)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(21.90) = 1.70, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.88)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(19.17) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.14 to 3.46)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(13.91) = 0.86, p = 0.807, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.58 to 3.70)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(15.88) = 0.75, p = 0.928, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-3.25 to 6.82)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(11.13) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.36)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(14.69) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.10 to 1.69)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(12.37) = -1.03, p = 0.645, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-2.59 to 0.92)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(10.72) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.18)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(11.52) = -1.33, p = 0.421, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-3.40 to 0.83)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(11.16) = 1.53, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.04)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(10.72) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-4.67 to 3.73)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance